30 km/h Speed Limit in Dublin - Good News

anmajornarthainig wrote:

Typical introduce an abritary law that can`t be enforced and that will ultimately lower respect for the law rather than actually tackle the route causes of fatal accidents and tackling dangerous drivers.

But everybody likes slippers?

Some of the speed limits in effect around the country make about as much sense as the slippers idea.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

Some of the speed limits in effect around the country make about as much sense as the slippers idea.

There is one very close to Castle Monster which makes less sense than the slipper idea. Speed limit increases from 60km to 80km coming to a steep hill followed quickly by a sharp narrow LH bend.

Sure if you drive from Donnybrook to Kilmacanogue you are on dual carraigeway the whole way and the speed limits go 50-60-80-60-100-60-80-60-80 madness

On the Galway-Oughterard road there is a 100km zone that starts right beside a sign painted on the road that warns Danger Drive Slowly as far as I can recall.

On a bad bend coming into the next village, at a spot where a girl drove off the road and was killed, the NRA put up a 100 km sign.

Does anyone know the Killimer-Tarbert Car Ferry in West Clare where you turn off the main road down to the ferry (about 150 metres) ? Next time you're there you might notice the 100km sign on the way down to the boat - it must be there in case you are in a hurry and have to drive down the 150 metres or yards really quickly past the dozen parked cars around a sharp left bend, where there is a pedestrian area with a tea/coffee verandah and then you're at the ferry - phew.

johnfás wrote:

You can do 30 km/h in 4th.

It really depends on the car. In mine I need to be going 25mph (about 40kph) on a flat road before I can go into 4th gear, otherwise the car stutters. I'd need to be going around 40mph before going into 5th.

kate p wrote:

AfricanDave, there's also a discussion on p.ie about a proposed EU regulation that would see all drivers obliged to have their headlights on during the day, which they say will lead to extra fuel consumption. I automatically put on the dims when I get into the car but would consider it to be a safer measure than this 30km speed limit because it increases awareness on the part of other drivers. The Irish are notorious for ignoring speed limits anyway and in cities the times you're most likely to make a difference by driving slowly are the times you have no choice but to inch along anyway. Dublin will be a city of night-time kerbcrawlers by legislation...

I do agree that having lights on all day is much safer than not doing so. My car is Swedish so I can't turn the lights off. Although it does add to fuel consumption, the daylight dipped lights run at a much lower amperage than the normal dipped lights, so the additional consumption is negligible. Making me drive at 30kph as opposed to 50 would have a much bigger impact on my fuel consumption.
I only ever drive in the city at night so a move such as the one being proposed would affect me moreso than most other people who drive through the city.
I agree that for most people it will make little or no difference as they're stuck in traffic most of the time they're in town anyway so they're not going to be moving very fast.

AfricanDave wrote:

johnfás wrote:

You can do 30 km/h in 4th.

It really depends on the car. In mine I need to be going 25mph (about 40kph) on a flat road before I can go into 4th gear, otherwise the car stutters. I'd need to be going around 40mph before going into 5th.

kate p wrote:

AfricanDave, there's also a discussion on p.ie about a proposed EU regulation that would see all drivers obliged to have their headlights on during the day, which they say will lead to extra fuel consumption. I automatically put on the dims when I get into the car but would consider it to be a safer measure than this 30km speed limit because it increases awareness on the part of other drivers. The Irish are notorious for ignoring speed limits anyway and in cities the times you're most likely to make a difference by driving slowly are the times you have no choice but to inch along anyway. Dublin will be a city of night-time kerbcrawlers by legislation...

I do agree that having lights on all day is much safer than not doing so. My car is Swedish so I can't turn the lights off. Although it does add to fuel consumption, the daylight dipped lights run at a much lower amperage than the normal dipped lights, so the additional consumption is negligible. Making me drive at 30kph as opposed to 50 would have a much bigger impact on my fuel consumption.
I only ever drive in the city at night so a move such as the one being proposed would affect me moreso than most other people who drive through the city.
I agree that for most people it will make little or no difference as they're stuck in traffic most of the time they're in town anyway so they're not going to be moving very fast.

Have you looked up the most fuel-efficient speed for your car in the manual? It is surprising how low it is for a lot of cars.

I have. I can't remember the exact figure but I know it's around the standard 55-60mph.
The manual on my car tells me not to go into 5th gear until I'm going 45mph, but I generally go to 5th at about 40.

Quote :

Speed is the prime factor that decides whether people live or die in crashes. I'm shocked how easy you all seem to find it to right off a few dodgy old ladies or wobbly cyclists.

Who's writing off dodgy old ladies and wobbly cyclists?

There are two issues here, as your post above suggests.
One is whether speed will make a difference to pedestrians and cyclists and on its own, I believe that it won't because there has never been a concerted effort, since Judge sang the safe cross code 25 years ago, to teach people how to be responsible pedestrians. Nobody wants to kill someone on the road any more than a cyclist or pedestrian wants to be killed - but the responsibility for road safety lies with all road users, and schemes that continue to place the bulk of the responsibility on one category cannot achieve the best possible results.


The second is that speed is the prime factor in deciding whether people live or die in crashes. Even if it's not the prime one, it's important enough to be worth taking into consideration as a measure to reduce death on the roads. There are a lot of determinants, however and volume of traffic and time of day are important too when it comes to car accidents that happen in the city.

There's an interesting phenomenon on the M50 which is that where the roadworks are taking place, there is a real, working 2 speed lane network; those who wish to observe the speed limit do so in the left lane, and those who wish to ignore it travel in the right lane. I think it shows quite clearly that there are those who follow the rules and there is tolerance on everyone's behalf of those who don't. Then again, relatively few fatal accidents happen on motorways, where speeds are highest.

I'm sure Cookie knows more about this and might be persuaded to delve into the darkness that was the old job and give us the benefit of his musings. Though seeing from his new avatar the lengths he's gone to to break with the past, maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Inane speed limits like the ones posted above don't do anyone any favours.

I've been travelling a lot lately around Mullingar and can't find any signs for speed - though the other signs mix between motorway blue and national route green side by side.

Kate P wrote:

Quote :

Speed is the prime factor that decides whether people live or die in crashes. I'm shocked how easy you all seem to find it to right off a few dodgy old ladies or wobbly cyclists.

Who's writing off dodgy old ladies and wobbly cyclists?

There are two issues here, as your post above suggests.
One is whether speed will make a difference to pedestrians and cyclists and on its own, I believe that it won't because there has never been a concerted effort, since Judge sang the safe cross code 25 years ago, to teach people how to be responsible pedestrians. Nobody wants to kill someone on the road any more than a cyclist or pedestrian wants to be killed - but the responsibility for road safety lies with all road users, and schemes that continue to place the bulk of the responsibility on one category cannot achieve the best possible results.


The second is that speed is the prime factor in deciding whether people live or die in crashes. Even if it's not the prime one, it's important enough to be worth taking into consideration as a measure to reduce death on the roads. There are a lot of determinants, however and volume of traffic and time of day are important too when it comes to car accidents that happen in the city.

There's an interesting phenomenon on the M50 which is that where the roadworks are taking place, there is a real, working 2 speed lane network; those who wish to observe the speed limit do so in the left lane, and those who wish to ignore it travel in the right lane. I think it shows quite clearly that there are those who follow the rules and there is tolerance on everyone's behalf of those who don't. Then again, relatively few fatal accidents happen on motorways, where speeds are highest.

I'm sure Cookie knows more about this and might be persuaded to delve into the darkness that was the old job and give us the benefit of his musings. Though seeing from his new avatar the lengths he's gone to to break with the past, maybe I'm being overly optimistic.
Inane speed limits like the ones posted above don't do anyone any favours.

I've been travelling a lot lately around Mullingar and can't find any signs for speed - though the other signs mix between motorway blue and national route green side by side.

Peoples feelings about speed and safety are not very reliable as a basis for policy. There has been voluminous objective reasearch done internationally that confirms that at speeds below 17 miles an hour pedestrian deaths hardly ever occur. Here is the abstract of one government study.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS809012.html

"Abstract

The relationship between vehicle travel speeds and resulting pedestrian injury was reviewed in the literature and in existing data sets. Results indicated that higher vehicle speeds are strongly associated with both a greater likelihood of pedestrian crash occurrence and more serious resulting pedestrian injury. It was estimated that only 5 percent of pedestrians would die when struck by a vehicle traveling at 20 miles per hour or less. This compares with fatality rates of 40, 80, and nearly 100 percent for striking speeds of 30, 40, and 50 miles per hour or more respectively. Reductions in vehicle travel speeds can be achieved through lowered speed limits, police enforcement of speed limits, and associated public information. More long-lasting speed reductions in neighborhoods where vehicles and pedestrians commonly share the roadway can be achieved through engineering approaches generally known as traffic calming. Countermeasures include road humps, roundabouts, other horizontal traffic deflections (e.g., chicanes), and increased use of stop signs. Comprehensive community-based speed reduction programs, combining public information and education, enforcement, and roadway engineering, are recommended."

There is also a lot of research that shows that urban speeds can effectively be controlled, mainly by engineering methods. Speed is the prime factor. Nobody was every killed by a stationary car.

In choosing higher speed limits we choose to kill people and also to limit the mobility of older people who aren't quick enough on their feet to dodge traffic.
Deaths on the roads have taken away children's freedom of movement. They can't play out and are stuck watching telly getting obese.

Pedestrians should take back the streets.